[ietf-dkim] New issue: base-00 3.5 x= (was: testing Message
Corpus& question for base spec)
hsantos at santronics.com
Sat Feb 11 12:05:07 PST 2006
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>
> Douglas Otis wrote:
> [base-00 3.5 x=]
> > The MUST in the draft may be a bit harsh.
> Yes, s/MUST/SHOULD/ makes sense, e.g. if a MUA behind IMAP
> wants to check signatures. Editorial nit: Splitting 3.5 in
> subsections for the various "field types" could be a good idea.
Just a follow up to my previous message.
This section says the default is NO expiration.
That isn't going to work very well :-)
A DKIM message will no expiration will quickly moving into a reject
classification if other issues are found with the message.
This will be especially the case with key policy "t=y" testing flag
This section should make the x= mandatory for t=y key policies and
should recommend a short expiration for testing.
A long "testing period" with problematic DKIM messages should not be
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
More information about the ietf-dkim